|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Vereor Nox wrote:
I hope that it isn't just a flat 500 now. I liked how the alignment of the victim factored into the alignment hit as described in I Shot a Man in Reno Just to Watch Him Die.
I for one am excited to see how alignment plays out when we get into PFO. I think the system as currently described will make for settlements that are much more diverse than we might see if settlements could allow persons of every alignment.
There is no reason CE and LG friends can't still play together... war, dungeon delving, trading, etc. One thing to remember is that forming a Kingdom will allow even more alignments to come under a single banner. Though alliances can already allow this, kingdoms are maybe a bit more close-knit... if this is what is desired.
Hah, I was just adding a few paragraphs to my post to include that =P
The basic transaction that occurs when one player buys gold from another (either illegally from a gold farmer or legally by selling a PLEX-like item [in PFO, we are jokingly referring to these as "Goblin Balls" until GW gives us a proper name]) is that one player is paying $$ for another player's time.
Player A pays Player B's monthly subscription in exchange for the fruits of some hours of Player B's playtime, measured in gold. Player As are now able to experience the game as they wish (now being able to afford rare, top-tier items without playing more than they are able to or want to). Player Bs can continue their subscription where they otherwise may have to cancel it and/or can better adjust their $$ spending on the game to something they are more comfortable with.
The players that this doesn't benefit, Player Cs, are poor in both playtime and $$. But they aren't made worse off, either.
There isn't much reason to not allow players to make this mutually beneficial arrangement. The only really good one is the example in EvE that somebody posted, where there was one way to farm gold that was significantly faster than others. This skewed PLEX purchases towards these players and away from all other types of players, which is undesirable as it reduces the benefit of having the system there for Player Bs in the first place.
I think the recent thread about types of players is somewhat telling for why there is pushback against this idea:
Some players may feel that wealth is an achievement that is properly awarded to the Player Bs of the world for putting in the time to accumulate it. They dislike it when other Player Bs redistribute their wealth, which diminishes their own accomplishment.
I've seen this sentiment in games without PLEX-like systems, too. In WoW, many people would get very upset if a rich player created a ton of an expensive item and sold them at a loss on the AH or gave them away to new players. Essentially, the offended party felt they should be able to restrict another player's freedom to do with their wealth what they pleased because that player was diminishing the offended's own wealth (accomplishments).
I like to think of it like this: Instead of just competing against the players that have a lot of time to invest in the gameworld, I'm also competing against the players that have a lot of $$ to invest in the gameworld. The great thing about a Goblin Balls item is that a character can only use them up at a rate of 1 per month, which acts to naturally slow down the market for them. Also, if a Player A or group of Player As throws a ton of money at GW in order to buy Goblin Balls, they will get less and less gold for each as they accumulate a higher and higher percentage of the total world wealth. Also, Goblinworks can (and Ryan has stated elsewhere that he will) manipulate the supply and therefore gold price of Goblin Balls by changing the $$ cost of Goblin Balls (just as the EvE developers did in an example that another poster put forth in this thread).
Vic Wertz wrote:
I prefer no daily limits, and instead having a weekly or monthly limit. Or even a monthly limit in conjunction with weekly limits, if this is desirable and not too complicated.
I think weekly/monthly limits strike a good balance between incentivizing players to log in regularly and aiding players that can only play at irregular intervals for varying spans of time.
@Being I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it, but from the header "Escalation Mechanics:"
Goblinworks Blog wrote:
The combination of different types of strength-based advances, expansion preference, stage advances, and quests associated with stages provides us with a wide variety of tools for creating very different experiences from escalation to escalation. Some escalations like the barbarian raid will effectively "march" across the map; some will reach a defensible limit and fort up; some will keep trying to expand indefinitely and attempt to overrun the entire map. Some escalations will burn out on their own, and simply leave if no one defeats them. Others will continue indefinitely until someone puts them down.
@Bludd But we already have 5 new threads in which to discuss alignment each week... ='(
I was being more specific, though. There was 'that' statement (quoted) about what is considered evil/chaotic. I get the feeling that that discussion has been going on since the alignment system was conceived.
It's a fine discussion to have (again, and again... =P) but we already know the answer in regards to PFO: Stealing is Chaotic, not Evil, in our world.
You have to take some facts about alignment in hand before you can have a discussion about what alignment you believe bandits will be in PFO.
And I don't consider that sort of a discussion to be an 'alignment discussion,' nor off-topic, of course. The podcast did not touch at all on what is (or should be) considered evil or chaotic.
The change of price of PLEX is a function of existing inflation and supply & demand of PLEX. It does not cause new money to be created.
@Hardin I may be mistaken, but for whatever reason, it seems to me like you keep arguing against a global AH... but I don't think anybody else is talking about global AHs.
I feel like there is some major miscommunication going on.
I'm glad this one found its way to us.
I think a good 40 minutes for Being to get it all out there every few months will do us all some good:
"I know I've gotten off-track, but then that's my specialty *hearty chuckle*"
I've been looking forward to this, thanks.
I'm sorry but stealing and extortion is still evil. No matter how much you point out what you don't do. So I agree with Being on the bandit alignment.
Please, let's not make this another alignment thread
EDIT: Wow, this was even better than I expected. I do hope Krows and Being get another chance to do this again soon.
laffs: 34:30 + 35:15
Why'd you scare 'em all away, bro?
One of the devs stated in an interview (or maybe it was the KS video update?) that players would be able to interact with escalations in other ways than simply fighting them. It could be gated by character alignment or which faction you are allied with.
@Hobs From the blog, I got the feeling that monsters would invade nearby wilderness hexes from their origin point (the monster hex).If left alone, some would continue to invade nearby wilderness hexes, some would 'dig in', and some might simply 'go away'. There was the example of the barbarian cycle 'marching' across the landscape, for instance. If the escalation was beat back, players would 'reclaim' the overrun wilderness hexes. We don't know much about Monster Hexes, but it seems those are a permanent infestation, as opposed to the overrun wilderness hexes which otherwise seem to function similarly.
It seems pretty close to what you were saying. Not quite as dynamic, but easier to implement. I was very excited about this new information about how different monster escalation cycles might affect the landscape in different ways =D
Clarification Please: Is there an automatic shift towards Good in addition to the one towards Lawful?
Clarification Please: Is there an automatic shift towards Good in addition to the one towards Lawful?
I will point out for the fourth or fifth time I have never said I was going to be lawful good so your point is largely irrelevant
I guess I don't understand how the system can keep you from correctly RPing, then.
If you murder a guy that murdered your friend last week, then the laws of the gods will likely lead to a shift towards C and E. If you expect this, what is the issue?
Clarification Please: Is there an automatic shift towards Good in addition to the one towards Lawful?
This reaction seems to be consistent with a NN - CE alignment.
I'll state again since this is the true root of the issue: The gods tell you what alignment means; you don't decide what behaviors are LG, they do.
Ryan says "PvE is an important foundation, but not the focus of the game."
I think it's more that you should be thinking of PvE as a factor in your settlement's PvP success, rather than thinking about PvE success as a goal in itself.
This might just be my impression, but I get the feeling that whenever he downplays PvE, it is in relation to the themepark model of questing & dungeoneering and especially the themepark end-game: large-group raiding, difficult scripted encounters, getting the best gear, etc.
None of those things are priorities in PFO... end-game or otherwise. In fact, you won't need to PvE at all (or maybe not much: merit badges, alignment, etc).
That isn't to say that PvE won't be important, or that you won't be able to spend all your time PvEing. I expect that just as one player might focus on PvP, another might focus on PvE. I also expect that there will form an alliance of settlements that take special care to protect their PvEers. They will put extra effort to attract those PvEers that shy away from PvP. We will need PvEers to harvest resources (and fight the mobs that spawn at harvesting camps), to delve into dungeons for items that can be crafted into settlement buildings or equipment, and to craft the items we will need in order to be successful in PvP.
TL;DR: In short, I believe that PvE will be 'limited' in comparison to the MMOs that we are used to. In PFO, there is more PvP going on than PvE (which is different than we are used to), and the end- meta-game will revolve around PvP interactions. PvE will be a means to a successful end-game, rather than an end-game in itself.
This conversation is definitely focused on the edge-case.
While it may only take 3-5 murders to drop from Good to Neutral, that is based on the victims also being Good.
If the victims just murdered your friends, they are likely not even close to Good, or they were Good (but are now neutral for the murders) and had very good reason to do it. So, now you must also make the choice of whether you have a good enough reason to murder them. If you murder them, however, you WON'T drop out of Good.
If they are not good, it will take a killing spree of several unflagged groups to lose your alignment. Any CE murderers are likely flying flags anyway for the bonuses, knowing that their alignment isn't much of an obstacle for anybody wishing to stay LG.
The instances where you drop your alignment for murdering just a 'few' persons will be few and far between. And it makes sense to me in those cases.
Follow the link in Lee Hammock's name, that's where you read it. It also answers this question.
Also, scrolling through that thread, I quickly found another post that may give you some context.
Thanks for linking that, Tuoweit.
There are quite a few 'well, duh!' comments on these boards that do little except detract attention from meaningful conversation. These extrapolations of how the game in 2 years will work are made based on incomplete information... information that the developers obviously must have, since they are so 'duh.' It can be quite frustrating at times.
I guess maybe I just have more trust in the developers, having interacted at various times.
Regarding the "PvP Vulnerability Window"
Lee Hammock wrote:
During your PvP window your NPC guards will be present, but in far fewer numbers than outside the window so you will need your players there if you are attacked. Meanwhile outside the PvP window the guards will be numerous enough that attacking the settlement will be extremely difficult if its player population shows up to defend it, but it is possible.
You can be attacked at any time, but guards will be present outside the proposed "PvP Window," making it much more difficult. Follow the link for the first full description of the concept; I don't believe we've had anything else to add to or contradict that post.
I think that will happen often. Those players will be neutral or CE.
Capricious, wrothful, or arbitrary Paladins won't stay Paladins for long.
This is why I don't have much to say on this subject.
Whether or not that is the case, I think LG groups will find it handy to have one person that can 'detect alignment' so they can better judge whether or not another group is approaching them 'aggressively.' If they are a group of neutrals or CE thugs, it won't make too much of a difference if they determine that the best course of action is to act against their alignment and attempt to murder them preemptively. If they are goods, they have a pretty good idea that they won't attack (especially if it takes weeks or months to recover their alignment).
-I'm really fond of the goblins' look and especially their crude tent.
I also prefer weekly limits over daily. I haven't considered monthly limits before, but that seems even better.
Daily limits aren't so great for people that can only really play on the weekend but can play for many hours on the weekend. If they won't be able to play one weekend, a weekly limit isn't so great for them, either (unless, of course, the weekly limit is set near 40 hours). Monthly limit is nice because I suspect that most players' monthly playtime doesn't deviate as far from their average monthly playtime as their weekly playtime does.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Thanks for the input, Stephen. I'm glad to hear that minting is being thought about, and I will be interested in how you come to a final decision about it.
To be clear, when I talk about "settlements being able to create and distribute their own currency," I'm imagining a system something like the DKP system. Settlements could give out DKP currency for whatever activities they wish, and allow players to redeem their DKP with the settlement leaders for whatever they decide. I don't expect any NPC interactions to be tied in with this, it would be recognized only by players making the choice to trade for it. Really, I'm hoping for an in-game interface that settlement leaders could use to set permissions for who has the authority to create these 'points' and that players can use to trade these 'points' to eachother. As far as I know, the mods available in WoW do not allow you to trade points to another player (except by one of the 'points controllers' manually adjusting their scores); this is the function that I would like to see. If the ability to mod the game allows this to happen, I'd be happy with that =)
I think that warning might be a good idea, but I don't think it should mean that anybody can kill you free of alignment and rep penalties.
When you enter a warzone, you should expect to encounter hostile characters from one or both sides of the conflict, obviously. Both armies know that you are likely there to aid one or the other of them; of course they want to keep you from helping the other so they can win the war! If they are both Lawful Good settlements, maybe you have less reason to expect to be murdered by such upstanding citizens =) That is a choice they will have to make.
... If you've seen that The UnNamed Company has been hired in the conflict, expect no mercy (Bludd, I was indeed thinking of your organization when I put that in my other post ;)
Note that the only coin faucet shown there is PvE & Battlefield Combat; the other relationship is a reciprocal one between "PvE & Battlefield Combat" and "Processing, Crafting, Transport & Trading."
I think this was explained as PvE and PvP players give gold to crafters for gear, and crafters give gold to adventurers for the craftable dungeon rewards they have gathered.
I expect PvE to be a significant part of the game. Maybe this is a little different from other Open FFA PvP games you have played? I'm not sure there is a reason to be concerned about 'taking away from PvP;' the game is going to be PvE -and- PvP. I think PvE is going to be a bigger part of the game than it might seem by looking at the discussion and blog contents; PvP is just a hot topic and perhaps more difficult to get right.
You will be able to acquire some crafting components and items only from PvE dungeons and escalations. I suspect that adventuring vs. humanoid NPCs will indeed be the main faucet for coin.
I humbly suggest reading over some of my favorite blogs, Adventure in the River Kingdoms and Butchers, Bakers, and Candlestick Makers, which explain some of the interactions between PvE adventuring, PvP activities, and crafting. Also the next one, which is relatively short, Where the Wild Things Are, which gives a little more detail on the roll of PvE in this sandbox.
People will choose their role based on many factors. What is 'most lucrative' is only one of those factors, and may not be the most important factor for most (it isn't for me, at least... I like to PvP =P).
That aside, if PvE happens to be wildly more lucrative than anything else at some point, then all those that simply do the 'most lucrative' thing will start doing PvE... At which point dungeons will become scarcer, banditry will become easier (less competition, more potential engagements, better ability to choose targets, etc.), crafters will be in short supply and thus can charge higher prices, merchants' time will be valued higher and can charge higher prices, etc. And then the 'most lucrative' role will be something else for another short period. It balances out in the end.
From my lengthy experience here, I'd say the majority of players posting in these forums accept that PvP will be in the game but are not particularly interested in it.
Minting is a really cool idea that I haven't ever seen in a game before. We've talked before about settlements being able to create and distribute their own currency, but minting a global currency that the game is built around is interesting. Thanks for bringing that up.
I wonder if it's just too much mess; adding another variable factor into the money supply will just make GW's control of the economy more difficult. Minting strikes me as a particularly variable faucet, also, as the rate of flow depends on several different PC actions undertaken by different roles of PC.
Any other ideas on the pros and cons of a global minting system?
I think this might be a good compromise if we must come to that, but I think KJD has the right of it here... he's convinced me.
-I agree that taking away alignment and rep penalties for attacking non-combative 3rd parties makes the choice of 'should I attack or not?' much easier to make. More factors going into that choice will make it more interesting.
-Why bypass the alignment system? Lawful Goods should be held to a higher moral standard than Chaotic Evils.
-Just as with the long-ago proposed 'challenge' mechanic, I wonder why we should try to bypass the alignment system; let it work. At worst, I can see something close to Tuoweit's suggestion, where the alignment and rep penalties are somewhat decreased or replaced with a flat daily hit, after some time&money effort has been put forth in order to enact an 'occupation' zone in the settlement hex.
I just wonder if it's worth designing another system for this, in what amounts to a system designed to circumvent an existing system (alignment/rep) in a 'special case.'
The supply of an item in the game, just as in the real world, is finite. The maximum rate at which resources can be found, extracted, and turned into goods depends on what GW sets them at in the game, as you pointed out.
If you have 6 trillion units of lumber in storage, you have been artificially raising the price of that good in order to accumulate it. That market would be operating at a surplus.
In this graph, if you accumulated that wood by buying all lumber priced under 3(cp), the suppliers are happy to sell just over 40 (trillion) Quantity on the market for that price, while the market only demands just over 30 (trillion). Your 6 trillion lumber comes from part of that excess Quantity Supplied.
When you dump all of that lumber on the market, it is simply a transfer of wealth from you to the consumers. When you set the price at 1(cp), current suppliers will only continue to supply a Quantity of about 10 (trillion). Your lumber will make up the difference between the Quantity Demanded at that price (just over 50 [trillion]) and the Quantity Supplied (just over 10 [trillion]).
After you have finished manipulating the price in this relatively short time, the price will shift towards the equilibrium in the long-run.
@Tuoweit I believe my analysis is correct. Until the product is in use by the end-consumer, it is 'in the market.'
In this case, the quantity of those goods that were for 'private use' is simply replaced by the same quantity that the owning entity must purchase on the market. You accurately perceived this as explained in the second paragraph of your response.
That aside, I believe the item destruction from banditry will be a greater factor than this could ever be, so Supply will absolutely decrease in any case.
This is along the same principle as the question 'what if the bandits use the items themselves?' The demand curve shifts in that case because the bandits are satisfying a portion of their demand outside of the market (through stolen goods) in the long-run.
I've found one of the difficulties in conversing about economics is separating the meanings of the terms Quantity Demanded/Supplied and Demand/Supply. Their scientific meanings are much stricter than the colloquial uses. I even used the words incorrectly in a few parts of my earlier posts.
@Randomwalker I think KJD said it best:
The argument that theft somehow improves economic conditions is absurd. This has nothing to do with whether or not banditry should be in the game.
Banditry is not good for merchants. It is terrible for consumers.
Banditry is good for bandits and especially good for crafters (assuming the crafter isn't transporting goods himself i.e. he is acting as a merchant).
Some merchants will enjoy the danger of potentially being robbed, but that doesn't mean they are -all- better off for it. My high-school econ teacher used to say "You can't see the forest for the trees." I think that is a big part of what is happening in this thread. It's easy to freeze a moment in time and look at how an action might change things in that moment; some merchants and consumers will be better off than they could have been without bandits, but that is a very small portion of the total effect of banditry.
Over time, I have been witness to at least a few players seeing how banditry is going to work out and deciding not to open themselves up to that risk; those players are certainly not (having more fun) better off from banditry, as they gave up on their 1st choice of role.
We are all are looking forward to the game as designed, and banditry is necessary in the game design. This does not require players in each 'group' to be better off from banditry.
@Bluddwolf Most people that sell items on the market may only take those into consideration, yes. But the successful merchants will consider all of their costs, rather than only a few, and they will control the bulk of items.
These are the ones that are going to be setting prices. Those that only look at current prices will be, by definition, working off of their prices.
Hmm, I thought I addressed this in my previous post:
That takes into account both the bandit selling the items and the bandit using the items.
Note that the bandit isn't "bringing more supply to the market," the supply is already in the market. The bandit stole supply, he did not create supply. The total amount of the goods remains the same or actually decreases, due to item destruction upon capture.
I think this is a great reason not to have starvation in PFO. Even if you can buy a bunch of cheap food, you will still lose some of the time on your 'good food' buff if you sit around chatting after going on an adventure.
In the TT, you can <pause> the game whenever you like. Not so in the MMO.
I also think there are good reasons to reflect 'thirst' and 'hunger' as a lack of a buff, rather than a debuff.
Anybody interested in further information on how I came to these conclusions, please search the forums for words like 'hunger,' 'thirst,' 'food,' 'drink,' and 'toilet' or 'potty.' There have to be 5 threads out there with very full discussions. Those last two might be your best bet to finding direct links to these conversations =P
I hope we can stop ourselves from derailing this thread into another hunger/thirst thread...
The Consumer is the only party that is sure to lose in every case regardless of the elasticity of demand because, in the long-run, the shifts of demand and supply lead to a lower equilibrium Quantity of goods being bought & sold, meaning many consumers are not getting items that they otherwise might be able to have.